linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] mfd: Provide the PRCMU with its own IRQ domain

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120821120243.GF26899@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:02:46 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	STEricsson_nomadik_linux@...t.st.com, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] mfd: Provide the PRCMU with its own IRQ domain

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:03:29PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:54:14AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50:27AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > What makes you say this?  This is just a convenience for finding a
> > > domain, irqdomains are *completely* indepentant of device tree.
> 
> > How can you say that? I think you mean _can_ be independent of DT. If
> > that's what you mean then yes, that's true. All I'm saying is we need
> 
> No, I really mean what I'm saying.  Device tree builds on irqdomains,
> not the other way around.

This is just semantics.
 
> > another way to get hold of the domain, because the only way to obtain
> > it without having direct access is via a device node.
> 
> This doesn't actually hold.

Okay, besides irq_find_host(struct device_node *np), how else can you fetch
a domain from the irqdomain?

> > > > - I know that you have interest in pushing the functionality into the
> > > > IRQ domain subsystem, but I'm struggling to see how. It's calling into
> > > > the IRQ domain where we're seeing issues in the first place, specifically
> > > > irq_create_mapping(). How about if we passed 'irq_domain' as a parameter
> > > > when requesting the IRQ? That way we can pass the correct IRQ without
> > > > worry of conversion. If 'irq_domain' is !NULL the IRQ management subsystem
> > > > can do the necessary conversions. If 'irq_domain' is NULL it continues to
> > > > use the requested IRQ as a virq.
> 
> > > This is totally orthogonal to doing the mapping in the MFD subsystem
> > > which is the issue here.
> 
> > Again, I only mentioned this because you said you wanted it to be handled
> > by the irqdomain.
> 
> The *mapping* should be being handled in irqdomain.
> 
> > I'll code up the second suggestion now.
> 
> I've already done this.

What have you done already? 

Why make suggestions if you're just going to do the work yourself?

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/